Graham v. University Physician Group
Plaintiff: Carolyn Graham
Defendant: University Physician Group
Case Number: 2:2011cv10319
Filed: January 26, 2011
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
Office: Detroit Office
County: Wayne
Presiding Judge: Bernard A. Friedman
Presiding Judge: Paul J. Komives
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 15 U.S.C. ยง 2
Jury Demanded By: Both

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
March 29, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 10 ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint and Granting Plaintiff's 4 Motion to Remand. Signed by District Judge Bernard A. Friedman. (CGre)
Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Michigan Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Graham v. University Physician Group
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Carolyn Graham
Represented By: Raymond J. Sterling
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: University Physician Group
Represented By: Stanley H. Pitts
Represented By: William D. Sargent
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?